Today I was researching farm subsidies in Oklahoma. This was precipitated by something Oklahoma state Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK) wrote.
"The President's budget calls for eliminating direct payments to our farmers."
Now, that is a half truth. And you know what they say about a half-truths? It's a whole lie.
I happen to believe that subsidies were good at one time but have morphed into a corporate welfare. It is no longer the family farmer of the old subsidy days, the one in need who benefited legitimately. Today it's the corporate shareholders who get richer, for the most part. The family farms I interact with across Oklahoma barely stay afloat. Some who receive subsidies do so to service loans to keep the farm from going under. It's no way to live.
So what's new with this "change remains a constant challenge" in my subject line? I hope that I can communicate that. We need to direct our attention to the Oklahoma farming culture in order to effect change I believe.
"In national and state mythos, if no longer in demographic fact, Oklahoma is a rural state." Oklahomans I believe cherish a rustic image, a love of the rural character of their state and the ideals tied to a farming economy that unfortunately no longer viably sustains the state, and does not sustain the spread-out rural communities. "Farming in Oklahoma has long been a cultural system as well as an economic one."
It means taking a sober look at farming in Oklahoma. Some years ago an investigative report found that Oklahoma farms receiving subsidies were also fined for violations ranging in single fines from $100 to $145,000. Subsidies were not exactly helping the communities where these farms are located either, these farms were contributing environmental and public health problems. These types of large corporate farms owned by executives (e.g: Alan Ritchey Inc. owns an Oklahoma dairy) tend to pollute and not make for good neighbors. The only way to end that cycle is to return to diverse, sustainable farms feeding the regions around them. Not just in Oklahoma but around the country.
"Oklahoma agricultural crops have historically included corn, cotton,winter wheat, wheat hay, oats, milo maize, Kaffir corn, broom corn,soybeans, peanuts, sweet potatoes, alfalfa, cow peas, and wild hay." The top subsidized crops in the United States are corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and rice. You've heard it before; corn is king. We don't grow any rice in Oklahoma. We are the number three state for wheat. For 2009 farmers in Oklahoma intended to plant 370,000 acres in corn. It's not a lot really by comparison. But we have, however, an oversupply of grain in the entire country so much so that in 2007 then USDA secretary Johannes declared:
"95 percent of the world's population lives outside of the U.S. With
agricultural productivity far outpacing consumption in our country, we
cannot afford to turn our backs on world trade standards. If we do
indeed want to firmly control the shape of future U.S. farm policy,
which I certainly believe we do, then we must be bold. Loosely
translated, "agricultural productivity far outpacing consumption in
our country."
Mad cash cow: Will the U.S. slaughter agriculture subsidies?
He wants us to dump our unwanted products on foreign markets. Lucas, meanwhile, wants "direct payments to continue" to enrich distant corporate shareholders. Oklahomans don't necessarily benefit from these subsidies, except maybe with cheap food like the rest of the nation. Oklahoma farmers take subsidies, barely make it, while corporate shareholders get rich and we stay behind the curve in just about everything. What does all this have to do with changing the Oklahoma mindset from a provincial far-right nostalgic embrace of something that doesn't exist? From farming communities that in no way resemble the former days of farming enterprises that benefitted local, if not regional communities? The core cultural values of farmers in Oklahoma has roots in the Oklahoma farming culture and it wasn't always conservative. And not to take away from this narrow subject but even the black farming community today struggles to hold onto a heritage of farming. The farmer class is united and supportive of one another despite negative images spread around by a media in love with its corporate underwriters.
Oklahoma is number three in wheat production. There's a political history in that wheat production.
"Oklahoma wheat farmers tend now to be conservative. This has not always, however, been the case. Prior to World War I many farmers became radicalized, even socialist. Cultural contradiction abounds. At the end of the twentieth century Oklahoma wheat farmers often relied on federal subsidies, while at the same time prized independence from government control. Farms often had an "equipment graveyard" from which farmers cannibalized parts to repair their own implements and thereby retained their freedom from dependence on others."
They were "even socialist." Hope this offers something to work with in effecting change in Oklahoma. Lucas urges subsidies to large corporate shareholders "as a commitment to our farmers... during economic crisis." I have news for Rep. Lucas, I believe the Oklahoma farmer is not suddenly experiencing a current crisis, economic or other, he's been in one for decades.
I apologize but I will be out the rest of the day and will not be available to comment until this evening.
Lucas's quotes are from a newsletter I received yesterday from his office, April 7th, 2009.
The blockquote and quotes in italics are from the digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/F/FA020.html (not allowed to link in diary for some reason.)